Regarding the Marriage Recognition Act


  • EU

    Councillor Sabrina Willow stands to make her address clearly motivated by Cllr Judith Gibbon's comments

    As most people are aware Onimbus is very much in favor of this legislation, I see it as something that needs to be addressed and should have been addressed years ago. But, we have people like Councillor Gibbon who do not see the irony in her statement. If a marriage between a man and a woman were to move to Angleter I would assume that their relationship as man and wife would be recognized although they were married in Onimbus, whether it is a civil union or a marriage it does not matter you would give them the same benefits as any other couple if they became citizens of your country. If this is true for most of our countries that we would allow the marriage between a man and a woman to have these rights then why would we not extend this right to same sex marriages? It seems that Councillor Gibbon would prefer that you not think of this point. I am in favor of this law in its current position and hope that in the future Councillor Gibbon will think of the irony in her statements before wasting our time again with her beliefs that exclude citizens from their basic rights of loving another.


  • Mod

    Even though the period of debate has started, I will allow it to continue a further 24 hours. 

    Debate on this legislation begins NOW and ends at 15:30 GMT on 17th February;
    Amendments (if applicable) would be voted on from then to 15:30 GMT on 18th February;
    And voting on the final form would begin then and end at 15:30 GMT on 19th January.

    Sir Edward Mountain

    Speaker of the European Council



  • Councillor Emma Granger stands to make her re-address clearly motivated by Cllr's Judith Gibbon and Sabrina Willow's comments

    Councillors, no union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. And in forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners outside of this doors demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. Our European Constitution grants them that right.

    The central question Comissioners is really what kind of Europe we want to be and what kind of future we’ll build together. And "Laissez-Faire, Laissez-Passer" comments such as some nations here present will not make better our European Union, prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying is inherently discriminatory and therefore violates our European constitution and the principles which our Union stands for. We as Europeans must guarantee equal protection under our laws to all groups of people. This means that member states can't exclude gay and lesbian couples from their marriage laws.

    No group in our Union should be unlawfully denied a fundamental right. The decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. Allowing LGBT people to marry is a matter of personal choice and autonomy and must be respected and recognize by al member states. Our European Union was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal. The project of each generation is to bridge the meaning of those founding words with the realities of changing times. Its time to recall the right of same sex couples and their protection by our Union.

    Lady Emma Granger , 2th Baroness of Montague

    His Majesty Councillor to the European Union

    Statement read in the European Council.


  • Admin

    Perhaps Cllr Willow could have used her precious time better by actually listening to what I was saying. This law is, in its current form, all about ensuring that marriages and civil unions formed in one country are recognised across the EU. That's a legitimate cross-border issue and it's perfectly reasonable for the EU to legislate on it.

    Whether same-sex marriages conducted in, for example, Omnibus should be recognised specifically as marriages in Angleter or Pravoslaviya or the Holy See, or whether those countries would be able to recognise them as civil unions, is unclear in the current legislation. Currently, for the record, Angleter does the latter. I would favour replacing the law with something that clarifies this, one way or the other.

    What Angleter stands against is Cllr Granger's amendment, which seeks to force member states to legalise same-sex marriages within their own countries. Obviously, nobody in Angleter is banned from loving each other or condemned to live in loneliness. Perhaps some Councillors would do well to be more careful with their words.

    As for Cllr Granger's argument that the Constitution mandates same-sex marriage, if that were true, she wouldn't need an amendment. There is no ruling endorsing that interpretation of the Constitution, and Angleter takes its Constitutional commitments very seriously. We follow the Constitution and we pay our contributions, and Cllr Granger should think carefully the next time she wants to accuse us of being treaty-breakers.

    The EU exists to ease relations between member states, not to replace them. Decisions like whether to introduce same-sex marriage should be taken closer to the people, not here in Europolis.

    As such, if it weren't already obvious, on behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, I vote AGAINST Cllr Granger's amendment.


  • Mod

    Councillor Gibbon, you have somehow managed to squeeze in the the terms "EU-imposed legal cannabis", "EU-imposed nuclear disarmament" and "EU-imposed abolition of the death penalty" in your maiden speech. If I had any doubt that you would not live up to your past Angleteric colleagues, it would of all been evaporated in that one single breath. Keep it up Councillor, you're doing great.

    It will come as no surprise that I advocate for the equal integrity of all individuals, and as such, I share the sentiment that gay rights are human rights, and that any law that prohibits equal marriage is inherently discriminatory. With that said, that's not what this legislation was designed to address, nor was that the intent of this debate. Councillor Gibbon is correct in summing this legislation up as a cross-border issue. The legislation at hand possess considerable ambiguities that have long required readdress. For the sake of stability, I would rather see it rewritten than repealed. Despite the ambiguities of the legislation, I would find repealing it altogether more troubling, as it would put many marriages - whether they be between men and women, men and men, women and women, and others - at risk. I am confident we can put a good rewrite together. 

    I do appreciate this discussion on equal marriage, and while I don't believe this is the current place to be discussing it, I believe it should be discussed at least somewhere. I would welcome a constitutional amendment that would equalize marriage across the European Union, but I don't want to derail this discussion any further, and I encourage my colleagues to debate the merit and spirit of the current bill at hand.

    With that all done and said, on behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote AGAINST Councillor Granger's amendment.

    Edward Firoux

    Deputy Speaker and Councillor of Inquista


  • EU

    For reasons that we have said before and because this must be done for the good of The European Union we must pass this legislation.

    Omnibus votes FOR this legislation

    Sanar Willow


  • Mod

    I have kept my personal opinion away from this, but looking at the legislation, I can see there is some changes needed beyond simply adding amendments to it, and since we have defeated the only proposed amendments, it has become a debate on whether we keep the law as it is or scrap it and try again.

    This needs rewritten and it needs to be rewritten quickly. The problems do lie with the national institutions and their definitions of marriage and civil partnership and whether it is Europe's place to make other nations reflect marital status across borders. In essence, unless we are willing to legislate for civil unions and marriages to have the same definitions across Europe, which I am not in favour of, it cannot stand.

    On behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, I vote AGAINTST this legislation.

    Sir Edward Mountain

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain

    Speaker of the European Council


  • Mod

    With 0 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINTST, Councillor Granger's amendments have been defeated. I thank Councillor Granger for her proposed amendments and encourage her to remain active in the European Council.

    With 1 vote FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, the Marriage Recognition Act is tied. Considering that there are only two votes, including my own, I will extend the voting period by 48 hours. Voting on affirming the Marriage Recognition Act will end at 15:30 GMT on February 21.

    Sir Edward Mountain

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain

    Speaker of the European Council


  • Admin

    I agree with Cllr Mountain's position. This legislation must be replaced, but in its current form it is basically unsalvageable.

    On behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, I vote AGAINST this legislation.


  • Mod

    With two votes AGAINST and one vote for, the Marriage Recognition Act is defeated. Thank you all who have participated in voting, the act has been rejected and may be proposed again with amendments to the European Council.

    Sir Edward Mountain

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain

    Speaker of the European Council


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.